Anyone missing CMx1-style campaigns?

[H1nd]

Point of argumentation is the possibility of changing the opinion or adding to the view of the the opponent. Besides if someone attacks a game or person is it then illegal to defend it or he/she? It takes two to tango. You however seem to me to think that it is some how counter argumentative or against logic to defend the game in any way. Why I am frustrated is that you seem to attack the cmx2 at every possibility without much of a real goal other than to vent your frustration. Once again that is only the picture that I have gotten from you threads this so far as well as some basic instinct of human personalities so naturally I reserve the right to be wrong. Similarly i'm pretty sure I am giving you a somewhat twisted picture of myself.

Now note this:
I can agree with your arguments to a certain point: There are some serious limitation with cmx2. They are probably some what more serious than how I first saw them. How ever I dont agree with your complete disregard of the current cmx2 campaign system.

I Try to to sum it up point by point:

"how can telling a story be more important than being able to simulate the different phases of battles?" - I see these to some extent as one and the same but naturally there are some nuances and very clear differences.
-most of the campaigns are semi dynamic company level stories of certain unit's path trough a one particular operation. The units get worn down, campaign path might get affected by success or failure, losses accumulate untill you either get refitted or if damage is too much too early you might get stonewalled and be unable to continue. In any case the historical/semi historical settings do limit the possiblities quite a lot since in most cases the company or two that you are playing through in these campaigns are just small gears in the larger war machine. You get precice order from higher ups to do this and there and then. Larger Cmx1 campaigns allowed you to more handily place the player at the boots of a battalion or even regimental commader who has a lot more options to call his shots. The player then creates the story (to larger extent) as he plays trough the dynamic static campaign of cmx1.

Both are a way of telling a story but in the other you are bound more by outside factors (wich is actually pretty damn realistic) and in the other you are the one telling the story. It is true that cmx1 excel in the operational freedom but it also lacks the ability to tell a longer story wich I personally appreciate more. I would love for example to be able to play a single german infantry company or even a battalion through June 1941 to 1945 in a one huge mega giga campaign. I really would. Technically Cmx2 has a potential to get closer (closer but still far far away) to this but cmx1 would only limit you to this one big battle (as good as it might be tactically). This is why I appreciate more the cmx2 than cmx1. But you have every right to like cmx1 more as long as you dont completely disregard the possibilites of the cmx2. Now to combine the two.. like I said before it would be the best possiblity. But here you seem to be oblivious to what is possible and what is not. There is no point crying for something that cannot be done. Not now anyways. Another example is the hull down bug. They know it, they should fix it quick, but we can't hurry the process in any way no matter how frustrated we are. We can either vote with our feet or just suck it up. It is that simple.

Let us continue:

"It can not simulate the impact of continued attacking/defending the same area."
This is mostly accurate argument. Without the dynamic carry over of battle damage there is only a very limited possibility to accurately present the impact on the area. It can be done but not well. This is why many of the campaign makers avoid using same maps over multiple scenarios but it does happen. Several campaigns have prolonged multiple phased battles using the same map with increasing battle damage but obviously the player has to accept that it might not be accurate and definately not dynamic. I can live with this and so can many others. You dont have to but I reccomend you give it a chance because it aint that bad really. Just a bit silly. But I can understand that this is a total turn off because it was a big issue for me as well when I first learned about it.

"It can not simulate the preservation of forces."
"It can not simulate the wear and tear."
"It can not simulate reinforcements and supply."

These arguments I really dont understand and it makes me wonder if you have actually tried these campaigns at all? In most of them you will have to carry on through many missions without ammo resupply or refitt. Tanks that get destroyed or men that get killed in the first mission (or first phase) are destroyed and dead in the next one as well unless your units receives a replacement. It is entirely up to the campaign designer and his vision of the difficulty/realism but to say that it is not simulated at all is a huge exaggeration. I have envisioned of some day getting around to do a campaign in wich a german infantry battalion must survive in the aftermath of the bagration with what ever it can get it's hands on: abbandoned munition depots, salvage from enemy etc etc but with no actual "behind the scenes" refitt or resupply. Likewise they would not receive any reinforcements unless happening across a larger group of fellow survivors. (this is also why i like the cmx2 campaigns) In the contexts of the current campaings the resupply is usually well presented in realistic way. Of the wear and tear I know only that to my knowledge (IIRC) the damage on vehicles (destroyed optics, guns etc) do carry over but I dont know if it is possbile to simulate the battle fatigue on men. (making them lose -1 fittness between missions for example) Ohh and IIRC think the AI can also have core units in campaigns but of this im also not entirely sure.

"It can not simulate the impact of losing time and a digging in enemy."

This is one of the things that is not perfect but could be possibly represented in a campaign if the designer so wishes. With the branching missions if player does not advance (either by choice or because he can't) then the campaign could branch to a mission where the enemy is much more dug in than had the player taken the pervious missions objectives in time. I would like to see such situations but that is not up to me i'm afraid unless i actually get around some day to do such campaign. The campaigns are after all clossal efforts and I do appreciate them as they are simply because someone has had all that effort to do them for us.

"It can not simulate the importance of the cover of the night for preparing positions or re-positioning."
Why? Why it can't? I can imagine a mission where you must sneak that straggling group of german landser survivors through a net of soviet patrols at night. Or attack that hill during the night instead of afternoon. It can be made. The question is why it is not utilized by much. I think like I said in the previous posts that the designers do consider that the average joe does not have the patience to go through 90 or 180 or even 270 turns of low intensity actions in pitch black darkness where everything is tricky and hard and those average joes (in wargame standards, not in general) are after all the majority consumer of these games. But it could be a possibility if the campaigns setting allows the player to have control ove such matters. How ever the company commander usually get told when to do his actions so in this sense it is understandable as well why such choices are not given to players in these campaigns. Now that straggling gourp of survivors on the other hand...

"It can not simulate the impact of drastic weather changes on a given situation."
Unfortunately the weather does not seem to be able to change during a mission but it certainly can in between. I can't see why a rain storm or thick fog could not turn a otherwise easily defendable possition undefendable agains on rushing russian tanks and infantry during a campaign. It is a possibility.

Maybe this helps you to see that there is some green grass over this side of the fence after all. But I do agree with you on the part that human factor cannot always answer for the time compression entirely. But you seem to by pass it entirely wich is well.. not very productive. I do agree on your point that often there is really too little time to do the missions properly. I cannot deny that. But wich came first: the time compression by human factors or short mission timers is pretty much impossible to tell and there is probably some unconsidered factors here that neither we or the designers take in to account.

Cheers!
-H1nd